Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:32:10
Message-Id: 4E3D3418.3050909@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years by "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2011 01:24 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 06-08-2011 11:59, Markos Chandras wrote: >> On 08/06/2011 12:49 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >>> On 06-08-2011 11:00:16 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: >>>> Oh come on Jorge. You know what I mean by slacking arches. I am >>>> not talking about punishing them. Maybe drop stable keywords >>>> or drop keyword from X package and shrink their tree so they >>>> can keep up with the load. >>>> >>>>> This should be the arch more developers use daily and is >>>>> likely the one with more members (herd count). Also, one >>>>> should remember the time it takes to compile, test or debug >>>>> an issue in a recent amd64 system or an old / slow box with >>>>> an "exotic arch" varies substantially. Not to mention that >>>>> the amount of testing done on "exotic arches" varies >>>>> substantially between projects. >>>> I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution. > >>> And what solution do you have in mind (in your Council role)? > > >> Drop stable keywords for certain arches and/or remove their >> keywords from X packages. The idea is to keep only a single and >> smaller portage tree which would be much more easier to manage. >> Pretty much the same situation as MIPS. It worked pretty well on >> MIPS, so it will work on these arches too > > If you talk to Mike, Raúl and Matt, I'm sure they'll tell you that > trying to get an arch out of testing status to supported is a > nightmare.
Why would you wanna do that? The situation is highly unlikely to change in the future. It is better to have a fully working testing tree than pretending to have a usable stable tree. I would accept a solution were only @system is in stable and everything else is in ~testing.
> AFAIK that was already done once for arm and is happening now for > mips. > > About the arches with >200 stable bugs, should we have dropped KDE > from the tree when for years we had >300 open bugs? Should we stop > doing releases if we have >100 open bugs? What about mysql with >50 > open bugs, etc?
You can't really compare an architecture with a package can you?
> Furthermore, there have been many complaints from arches with a high > number of stable bugs that by the time they were working on a stable > bug, a maintainer either dropped the version they were testing or > somewhere else in the tree someone decided to drop their keywords > and got their tree broken.
We can't keep old ebuilds around forever just because an arch decides to act on these bugs after 10 months. I'd say it again, I don't blame them, they have real lives too. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOPTQYAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCxmsQAIJSZ9gvIYoyLk03bFkHeHWA 4PCjoXPUWd8irpzV5+v01hU2up9w/3B3Hjr+vSfSY6W2+AymriHsB25MmsKa4uXF 1/HYcKDOwrseg6QFUup7A1sLKewlMlWPrfkCKlHxIxJ0AvXRnGxLXwVHMG5034Ee A/VhdYvhltEokG46Z4hqeYssgZvO3tMzhNkgyMUXjG1x8+Rw/22TQsKICJljds3Y /ZyVXoiDePb42jmibv198vXBaAzTA7ENPGnI7iOoZkteGWCa4wmE/m4nzltXHe/b 4kzsdB85ASNow2j9MGHOD+fmBqLEFTBy57s4WivNaOMTjiWbahCklZLTPlUFBrMJ WeP05YRbGDkkupf+vpivgjqArumOHs9aVelWJBiYfnzRjrT8FQJ33CWTXY9BoGcJ 3cjEIjE79Bu2GK2Vq4e3Ob7ZDMAzIVxaWQpp5Q+NPuliE8/dE6YPWdL+0iK7kXg9 ZugGjz1q1XNSgwVqSpStjoBGaDQtAQXaPXI4Ez8DYwztFA0VwijFNPtBksCr1e/9 wjcU90yAUgSWmor0wQVqw1F+TS1H4iQO5G9dgiTq7B7ODMjXpzhVR3tBXGImaTcE c3DmhQVWrX1eTSteU6n5qD4jlt8G/lrKaKVZSh4ucHRp6nQV/sefPEIE1LlYDvRW AwzIAoRWuTUy9dEqpSXy =TSYO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----